What should a guild have for it's type?
Forum rules
- Use common sense and be respectful towards each other at all times, even when disagreeing.
- Do not reveal sensitive game information. Guild secrets, player seconds are examples of things not allowed.
- Use common sense and be respectful towards each other at all times, even when disagreeing.
- Do not reveal sensitive game information. Guild secrets, player seconds are examples of things not allowed.
Re: What should a guild have for it's type?
Quite the issue indeed! I am wondering how long this bug is existing? I started playing again 9 months ago and I am pretty sure I would have noticed a bump of 270% in my specials. So I am guessing the issue is around probably (way) longer. One could argue it’s a feature of the game people have gotten used to. A feature that apparently has caused several unintended side-effects. A feature that caused disadvantages for certain guilds.
I guess I am going to be shelled over my comments because according to current investigations I as a Calian Blademaster must have taken great advantage of the issue. From my perspective the game has changed in many ways, but it certainly doesnt feel like we became overpowering in comparison to the rest of the realms. I actually think our numbers in bodies point entirely in a different direction. I can elaborate on why I think that is the case, but I dont think that's the purpose of current discussion. But it certainly doesnt seem like people are getting inline to gain from our unfair edge, should it exist.
I do not envy those who try to find a fair solution to current situation. There probably isnt one that wouldnt result in upsetting the vast majority of the playerbase. But if the best possible solution to a problem that probably exists for years is to buff every (fighter) guild but Calia, my prediction is that you will see the extinction of Calians, and many more players that will start playing the occ fighter/tank lay warlock/EW setup. Ironically the question whether or not that setup is too overpowering was the reason this discussion was started…
I guess I am going to be shelled over my comments because according to current investigations I as a Calian Blademaster must have taken great advantage of the issue. From my perspective the game has changed in many ways, but it certainly doesnt feel like we became overpowering in comparison to the rest of the realms. I actually think our numbers in bodies point entirely in a different direction. I can elaborate on why I think that is the case, but I dont think that's the purpose of current discussion. But it certainly doesnt seem like people are getting inline to gain from our unfair edge, should it exist.
I do not envy those who try to find a fair solution to current situation. There probably isnt one that wouldnt result in upsetting the vast majority of the playerbase. But if the best possible solution to a problem that probably exists for years is to buff every (fighter) guild but Calia, my prediction is that you will see the extinction of Calians, and many more players that will start playing the occ fighter/tank lay warlock/EW setup. Ironically the question whether or not that setup is too overpowering was the reason this discussion was started…
Re: What should a guild have for it's type?
Couldn't agree more (obviously)- Remember that as a Calian also we only have access to our primary skills *some* of the time but pay tax all the time- I am not sure this is factored into any balance calculation ether.. solo you cant tank you cant DPS you cant do much vs your size but still pay full tax.. - I quite fancy a wand however - did I ever mention I am an elf??TripleM wrote:Quite the issue indeed! I am wondering how long this bug is existing? I started playing again 9 months ago and I am pretty sure I would have noticed a bump of 270% in my specials. So I am guessing the issue is around probably (way) longer. One could argue it’s a feature of the game people have gotten used to. A feature that apparently has caused several unintended side-effects. A feature that caused disadvantages for certain guilds.
I guess I am going to be shelled over my comments because according to current investigations I as a Calian Blademaster must have taken great advantage of the issue. From my perspective the game has changed in many ways, but it certainly doesnt feel like we became overpowering in comparison to the rest of the realms. I actually think our numbers in bodies point entirely in a different direction. I can elaborate on why I think that is the case, but I dont think that's the purpose of current discussion. But it certainly doesnt seem like people are getting inline to gain from our unfair edge, should it exist.
I do not envy those who try to find a fair solution to current situation. There probably isnt one that wouldnt result in upsetting the vast majority of the playerbase. But if the best possible solution to a problem that probably exists for years is to buff every (fighter) guild but Calia, my prediction is that you will see the extinction of Calians, and many more players that will start playing the occ fighter/tank lay warlock/EW setup. Ironically the question whether or not that setup is too overpowering was the reason this discussion was started…











Re: What should a guild have for it's type?
The error has been around for years TripleM... at least since specials were standardised, and probably before then too. So we are talking at least 10 years.
So you wouldn't have noticed it

So you wouldn't have noticed it

Re: What should a guild have for it's type?
So we are only talking about updated specials? Cause I have a hard time seeing monks strike or pirates pbash as over powered specials 

Re: What should a guild have for it's type?
Daerin wrote:So we are only talking about updated specials? Cause I have a hard time seeing monks strike or pirates pbash as over powered specials
Well pirates pbash are not supposed to be powerfull per se, if monks have been recoded to the current speccs, they might even be getting an upgrade to that depending on how scewered it is
Re: What should a guild have for it's type?
That's kind of the issue. Inflate a weak special by 270% vs a powerful special by 270%... big differences. Pirates have a special still weaker with the error than Blademasters attack is supposed to be... but Blademasters currently end up with a special more powerful than what swarm is supposed to be.Daerin wrote:So we are only talking about updated specials? Cause I have a hard time seeing monks strike or pirates pbash as over powered specials
What it ends up with is that Blademasters end up with 170% more combat aid in real terms than Pirates do. Guilds with weaker special attacks have less combat aid than guilds with stronger attacks... the bigger the disparity in specials attacks, the greater the difference in caid gap between the guilds. This error throws global guild balance completely out.
Fixing the specials isn't the issue. The fix (as specials were originally intended) is coded, we just haven't implemented it. We really are not sure it is the fix we want.
Re: What should a guild have for it's type?
I am curious (if you can share) how this has also affected defensive abilities of guilds. Are those balanced properly? When you are talking about specials, are you just talking about damage specials, or all specials in general?Arman wrote:That's kind of the issue. Inflate a weak special by 270% vs a powerful special by 270%... big differences. Pirates have a special still weaker with the error than Blademasters attack is supposed to be... but Blademasters currently end up with a special more powerful than what swarm is supposed to be.Daerin wrote:So we are only talking about updated specials? Cause I have a hard time seeing monks strike or pirates pbash as over powered specials
What it ends up with is that Blademasters end up with 170% more combat aid in real terms than Pirates do. Guilds with weaker special attacks have less combat aid than guilds with stronger attacks... the bigger the disparity in specials attacks, the greater the difference in caid gap between the guilds. This error throws global guild balance completely out.
Fixing the specials isn't the issue. The fix (as specials were originally intended) is coded, we just haven't implemented it. We really are not sure it is the fix we want.
Re: What should a guild have for it's type?
In general it doesn't, except where it mitigates special attack damage. They generally work as intended. But there are other defensive specials that have been made unbalanced by the offensive special error... obviously quickness-boosting specials... they magnify the error to a pretty ridiculous point. Other specials are too.. you could probably guess those ones that are using the correct formula as they feel comparatively underwhelmingZugzug wrote:I am curious (if you can share) how this has also affected defensive abilities of guilds. Are those balanced properly? When you are talking about specials, are you just talking about damage specials, or all specials in general?Arman wrote:That's kind of the issue. Inflate a weak special by 270% vs a powerful special by 270%... big differences. Pirates have a special still weaker with the error than Blademasters attack is supposed to be... but Blademasters currently end up with a special more powerful than what swarm is supposed to be.Daerin wrote:So we are only talking about updated specials? Cause I have a hard time seeing monks strike or pirates pbash as over powered specials
What it ends up with is that Blademasters end up with 170% more combat aid in real terms than Pirates do. Guilds with weaker special attacks have less combat aid than guilds with stronger attacks... the bigger the disparity in specials attacks, the greater the difference in caid gap between the guilds. This error throws global guild balance completely out.
Fixing the specials isn't the issue. The fix (as specials were originally intended) is coded, we just haven't implemented it. We really are not sure it is the fix we want.

Re: What should a guild have for it's type?
If I may throw in my two coppers.
Given for how long this error has been in place and how population has inflated in their levels during this time (especially considering the addition of more and more powerful 2h weapons, which further scale with the error... I don't think bringing the power of special attacks to "correct" state would be the way to address the problem. The reasons have already been lied out (new players, smaller players) and effectively the situation would be fairly resemblant to the period when there was an increased quest multiplier, just more severe.
For the intermediate measure, I would probably suggest tempering with the "Soft Cap Function" curve and flattening it for current myth+x average to accommodate for the increased power coming from special attacks at these levels.
This way bonus given by the 270% stronger special would be roughly mitigated at v. high levels, at the same time not hurting new players, who would gain experience in the similar pace current playerbase did. In other words, xp at very high levels would be gained proportionally slower to the bonus given by the special.
Of course, it does not address the real problem, including calculation of combat aid (towards which I have very strong reservations anyway)... but perhaps offers a middle ground, until a better and long term solution is found.
Given for how long this error has been in place and how population has inflated in their levels during this time (especially considering the addition of more and more powerful 2h weapons, which further scale with the error... I don't think bringing the power of special attacks to "correct" state would be the way to address the problem. The reasons have already been lied out (new players, smaller players) and effectively the situation would be fairly resemblant to the period when there was an increased quest multiplier, just more severe.
For the intermediate measure, I would probably suggest tempering with the "Soft Cap Function" curve and flattening it for current myth+x average to accommodate for the increased power coming from special attacks at these levels.
This way bonus given by the 270% stronger special would be roughly mitigated at v. high levels, at the same time not hurting new players, who would gain experience in the similar pace current playerbase did. In other words, xp at very high levels would be gained proportionally slower to the bonus given by the special.
Of course, it does not address the real problem, including calculation of combat aid (towards which I have very strong reservations anyway)... but perhaps offers a middle ground, until a better and long term solution is found.
Re: What should a guild have for it's type?
A long time ago I had this crazy idea about guilds that would make balancing and maintaining them easier. Will post it here for posteriority and maybe it'll inspire someone.
First, there would be the generic guilds for each type: Fighter, Cleric, Mage, Ranger.
Each would have a lay and occ branch, with occ only being available to people who have achieved higher ranks in lay.
Example: Fighter lay would be something like the Cadets and occ more like Mercs (you could graduate from cadet to merc).
Now, this in itself would create a lot of possibilites for the players (all of those guilds would be free to join and neutral) since they could combine guilds as they wish (Fighter occ, Cleric lay etc.) and would form a base for all other, more specialized guilds.
The specialized guilds would take up the lay slot and work as a specialization. For example OCC Fighters could join DAs, gaining extra specials, skills, guildhall etc. OCC Mages could become Necromancers, Conjurers etc.
It could be great for balance since by balancing the base guild you're balancing all guilds of this type at the same time. It would also be great for creating new guilds, since you'd basically just do the add-on and wouldn't need to do everything from the ground up.
Just a crazy idea of an old fool
First, there would be the generic guilds for each type: Fighter, Cleric, Mage, Ranger.
Each would have a lay and occ branch, with occ only being available to people who have achieved higher ranks in lay.
Example: Fighter lay would be something like the Cadets and occ more like Mercs (you could graduate from cadet to merc).
Now, this in itself would create a lot of possibilites for the players (all of those guilds would be free to join and neutral) since they could combine guilds as they wish (Fighter occ, Cleric lay etc.) and would form a base for all other, more specialized guilds.
The specialized guilds would take up the lay slot and work as a specialization. For example OCC Fighters could join DAs, gaining extra specials, skills, guildhall etc. OCC Mages could become Necromancers, Conjurers etc.
It could be great for balance since by balancing the base guild you're balancing all guilds of this type at the same time. It would also be great for creating new guilds, since you'd basically just do the add-on and wouldn't need to do everything from the ground up.
Just a crazy idea of an old fool

Time is precious. Waste it wisely.
http://tworzymyatmosfere.pl/przescieradla-jedwabne-z-gumka/